iPhone 5 vs. iPhone 4S: Image comparison

Apple has shared a gallery of images from the new iPhone 5, one of which particularly caught our eye.

Dpreview’s own Scott Everett just recently traveled to Big Sur in California, capturing with his iPhone 4S a nearly identical image of the coastline as that which Apple shared today in the iPhone 5 sample gallery.

We thought we’d post the two side-by-side so that you can compare results from the iPhone 4S with those from the iPhone 5 yourself.

Big Sur on the iPhone 4S, taken by dpreview product manager Scott Everett.

Big Sur on the iPhone 5, shared as part of the sample gallery of images from Apple.

Looking at the EXIF data of the images strongly suggests that this is a new sensor, despite the pixel count remaining the same. Close examination shows the iPhone 5 is using a 4.1mm lens to give a 33mm equivalent field of view, rather than the 4S's 4.3mm lens, which gave a 35mm equivalent view. This would suggest the new sensor is a tiny fraction larger though the difference is within the territory of rounding error. The iPhone 5 has also selected ISO 50, 1/3EV below the 4S's minimum sensitivity of ISO 64.

Comments

You’re absolutely right I have same purple haze problem in my Iphone 5 camera. Some people said that it is due to introduction of a sapphire lens in iPhone 5 cameras but apple has refused all these issues and said that it is normal behavior of Iphone 5 camera and the lens has nothing to do with this. So I decided to find the solution on internet and I successfully got solution here http://howmobile.net/apple-iphone/2853-solution-camera-issues-iphone.html. You must see these solutions. After applying these solutions on my Iphone device, my Iphone camera started working quite nicely. Hope it will also help you.Thanks

Ok, thanks for pointing, so not only they are focused on different distances, they've been taken in different occasions, with different lighting, by different people. All I can see is that their relevance is even smaller, yet they made the news. Also, focusing on infinity and taking more than one shot shouldn't be that difficult. But if they can't even do it properly on a controlled environment (studio) why wouldk I expect it to be better this way?You are right...

that's fair, I get your point. Though I don't mind this post as the controlled studio environment is not a realistic one, I prefer real life examples to examples from professional lighting. But that's just my opinion, each to their own.

Apple stated is the same sensor. Same specs. Lower iso is just software/firmware updates.

Especulating things that go against official statements from a mere EXIF sounds very unprofessional inmho. But that is now the basis with all the blind hype surrouding apple. The differences could easily be explained by revised processing software.

If indeed there is a new sensor with the same mpx, it's probably the worst gain in a revised sensor in history.

I agree - from what we know right now, the sensor is unchanged. This article is poorly researched and I would've expected better from dpreview. For one, when and where did Apple state that the sensor is "new"? And the use of EXIF info to "confirm" this "fact" is flawed (as I pointed out in my previous comment below). It's a shame that this article got posted as it's already been cited by several other review sites/blogs.

The camera on this crApple iFruitcake is not worth an article here in DPR. Write an article when the hypePhone finally manages to reach the level of the Nokia N82, Samsung Innov8 or Nokia N8. We can of course forget about it even reaching the level of the mighty Nokia PureView 808 given a decade. Why the iSheep would even line up in front of a store to get this model is really one of the greatest mysteries in the world. Are they too intellectually-challenged to order it online?

A couple counter agruments as to why it's relivant on this website: What is the most popular camera on Flickr? The iPhone 4s. What is the 2nd most popular camera on Flickr? The iPhone 4. Not saying this is why you should buy it, but I'm saying why it's relevant. I agree the PureView 808 is a lot more interesting to a photographer, but DPreview covered that even though few people will buy it compared to the iPhone and they're covering a camera that likely millions of people will buy. Covering both sides gives perspective. DPreview covers a range from consumer to pro and they have a range of viewers, many more are closer to consumers. You don't hear me complaining they haven't reviewed the Hasselblad H4D-200MS.

Why should popularity count? Millions of flies eat what? Same thing.I don´t see that a device being capable of taking pics should have too much room here only because it´s "popular".I´m solely interested in "standalone" cameras, not smartphones with cameras. If I would, I would go to a dedicated smartphone website, not to DPreview.

Becaue it´s Apple. Apple is so coooool and trendy, and innovative, so Apple evangelists must buy it, otherwise they aren´t trendy and cool anymore and would possibly be ignored by other Apple evangelists. Oh my.

Let´s wait how long it will take until Dpreview is reviewing tablets capable of taking photographs. Sorry, but it seems to me that they are trying to fill up every day with some new articles, no matter which quality. There is another site(I don´t mention the name here, but it´s only run by one man) which still concentrates on real photography, camera reviews and doing a lot more of them rather than reporting something about smartphones. Like old DPreview did...

Prestidigitator, you're really cool! Do you have a newsletter or blog we can subscribe to?

I like how you use "iSheep" and "hypePhone"! You're totally original and creative. Seriously, I'd like to see what else you write and you're amazing photos (I mean, I can just tell you're a world class photographer and blogger).

Looking forward to your insightful and compelling views on todays technology. I think you can become the next Ken Rockwell!

I agree completely, how is it a 5 year old Nokia n82 can still take consistently better images that a current $1000 phone? This is not a subjective opinion either, it has a dedicated focusing lamp so gets things in focus more often, a dedicated flash (not LED) that exposes things much better. When it was released I breathed a sigh of relief that finally phones were going to take decent photos in most conditions yet 5 years later the iphone still cant do it at more than double the price?

Prestidigitator, your comment couldn't be directed at me, as I'm a great admirer of your writings. You should really think about doing a podcast!

I like the "hypePhoto" and "iSheep" too. LOL, where do you come up with that! That's just genius.

And I agree jedics, those iPhonies cost thousands and thousands of dollars and they're no better than the n82. Like most people, I buy a phone (and also, i wouldn't spend over $200 for one, unlike the "hypePhone" which costs like $10,000 or whatever) for it's camera and its camera only. That's why I haven't bought one of those mobile phones at all because they're cameras aren't good enough yet. I mean, why else would you want a phone except for a camera? I don't get it.

get your lawyers on the case pronto - looks like a copyright infringement to me, maybe you can even claim a patent for the "scheme of pressing a button with the device held at that angle at that geographic location" - at least viewed through the alice-in-wonderland world of apple legal manoeuvres.

...still an iPhone, though, with all the walled-garden cruft that goes along with that. I've really gone off Apple lately. Their plans for a closer tie-in with the privacy-invading Facebook clinched it for me - I'm going for a Galaxy S3

I don't think we can conclude that the sensor is larger based on the info in the EXIF. In fact, I believe the difference could be due to rounding errors.

Firstly, from the EXIF the actual focal length of the lens is 4.28mm for the 4S and 4.13mm for the 5.

Secondly, the 35mm equivalent focal length field in the EXIF is an integer (short) value. That means it will not include any decimal places and is most rounded unless the value is an exact integer.

So given the above, if hypothetically speaking the 35mm equivalent was actually 34.6mm (rounds to 35mm) for the 4S and 33.4mm (rounds to 33mm) for the 5, this would give the same multiplication factor and therefore the same sensor size.

As for the ISO difference, there are many examples of cameras using the same sensor but having a different minimum ISO.

The fact of the matter is that most people (myself included) are not hauling around their DSLR, or even point and shoot, everywhere they go. I'd rather get the shot with slightly lower quality then a point and shoot then have no shot at all! Remember that this site is for EVERY PHOTOGRAPHER and not just the gear snobs. It's a tough job so I'd give these guys a bit more respect.

I agree with (Graystar). What the freak is all of this? Do websites about fine cuisine cooking cover the latest Chef-Boyardee recipe based on its popularity with working parents who don't have the inclination to cook fine foods? And I'm just a hobbyist, but I would never insult this wonderful craft by using one of these things when we have m4/3rds and models like the Sony RX100 available--gee whiz, how small do you need? I don't care what the snap-shooting Kodak Brownie crowd is doing, I don't have any dislike for them but they're not photographers anymore than I'm a pro NBA player just because I can fire a shot from my backyard--and aspiring to use a REAL camera makes me no more of a "gear snob" than wanting to cook quality foods makes you a stove snob.

Perhaps. I find the 5 image to be more immersive, with a warmth and sense of depth that is lacking in the 4s version. Nonetheless, both sensor/lens/processing combinations lend a sense of realism to the images which give you the "you were there" feeling without the cold, detached, and somewhat empty spatial quantization you experience from most camera phones and many lower end digital point and shoots. Overall, I'd rate A++++, would definitely do business with again. Oh, wait, scratch that last line, I got carried away for a minute.

I guess we can't really judge now, Bothe pictures taken from different spot/angle - timing and lighting!

Both are just great considering from a phone not a pro cam , Howeverthe images you're seeing are in jpeg and jpg format which reduce theoriginal image quality which is in PNG format "portable network graphics"

Regardless of which camera or lens you feel is better in this case, can we set aside that difference for a moment and agree that *this* is a much more proper way to showcase how the cameras performance than the way some other companies do it?

This is a small spot of where the world has changed over the last couple of years, where phones have basically taken over a huge chunk of the low end P&S market and DPReview should report on them. Its not jumping on a fruit wagon at all.

If you don't like it, just ignore the articles and spend your time on something you enjoy.

No, zigi_S's point is if DPR starts reporting on one camphone, then fairness dictates that it also reports on the new releases from other brands, not just the tech-ignorant mainstream media's fave brand. As a reasonable compromise, DPR should report on camphones that bring real innovation, like the N82, Innov8, N8, and PureView 808. This iFruitcake most certainly is a mere pedestrian offering and should just be left to gadget-collector sites.

You haven't viewed too many samples from reviews on this site, have you? I ask because most sample pictures that are taken in portrait view are never rotated to their proper orientation. It's a very irritating thing this site does and that they have been doing for years. It's unbelievably lazy and inconsiderate to the readers of this site.

Except that there was dull sad overcast when I was shooting this. I had to do HDR and post-processing, otherwise there was nothing to look at.And Apple chose great weather and nice light, photo is good as is.Otherwise composition is almost the same, only iPhone lens is a bit wider.

The rock in the water looks much better on the 4S and the water fall is in shadow in the 4S....for phones they are obviously good cameras, but I don't see the 5's camera being significantly better - course we'd need photo's at the same lighting and focus points for that, just have to wait for DPReview to get one in hand for that.

I think they just look awesome when you consider that they have been taken with a mobile phone... they are even better (have less NR) than many entry level compact cameras. And no, I'm not an apple fanboy (I prefer Android).

So you have another phone that takes better photos? By all means I would love to see another... outside of the Nokia Lumia 920, but I still doubt that as they had to lie and I would like to know how they are getting their low light results.

Yes, Joseph, and it has existed for many years. Try getting a Nokia N82, Samsung Innov8, Nokia N8 or PureView 808. The Nokia Lumia 920 also has PureView tech, an optical image stabilizer and physically larger sensor than this overhyped crApple iFruitcake.

Thing is, Nokia is almost bancrupt, so there is not much to report about...who will buy a Nokia now? It's like buying a second hand Saab now LOL...And can you maybe change your synonyms once a while...I've seen more creative haters...

Pretty nice images for a phone. Should get out an old Minolta Dimage 7i and see if that bridge camera can match 'em.

Yes the 4S image on the left is sharper, surely due to less camera movement. Heck the news blurb said the newer camera runs at lower ISO maybe. We haven't the slightest idea what post-processing was or should have been done to either image, if any.

Interesting thing is that the presence of the iPhone 5 actually made the sea level rise.

Did not make it clear that was merely casting around for an illustrative example. The Minolta camera is an example camera that (a) have personal access to (b) was considered decent in its day and (c) as a sign of changing times, may indeed have been surpassed in image quality by a mere cellphone. All of which constitutes a mildly interesting marker, of the advance of photo technology and computational photography.

Both look fine to me. Apple says the 4s and 5 cameras are identical. I'd rather have the iPod Touch with the 5MP camera. Better for hiking, biking, running and travel photos. No stupid phone to answer.

What we know is that the 4S had the better photographer! Really, that may be it - The 4S has pretty good sharpness in the foreground to the middle of the frame. The 5 seems slightly blurry throughout - i.e. camera shake, or loss of detail due to the VR mechanism. It's probably because Scott took the shot standing on his head in a tripod position.

Latest in-depth reviews

Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.

No Nikon camera we've tested to date balances stills and video capture as well as the Nikon Z7. Though autofocus is less reliable than the D850, Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless gets enough right to earn our recommendation.

Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. While it's great for lunar and still wildlife photography, we found that it's not suited for much else.

The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Nikon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.

We spoke to wildfire photographer Stuart Palley about his experiences shooting the recent Woolsey fire, why the Nikon Z7 isn't quite ready to take a permanent spot in his gear bag, and 'that' Tweet from Donald Trump.

The Z7 presented Nikon with a stiff challenge: how to build a mirrorless camera that measures up to its own DSLRs and can deliver a familiar experience to Nikon users. Chris and Jordan tell us whether they think Nikon succeeded.

Nikon has released firmware version 1.02 that resolves a flickering issue when scrolling through images, an ISO limitation problem, and an occasional crash that could occur when displaying certain Raw files.

The Insta360 One X is the company's latest consumer 360-degree camera, supporting 5.7K video, including excellent image stabilization, as well as 18MP photos. And, in our experience, it's a really fun camera to use.